Marilyn Monroe: Mysteries & Scandals (1998)

Source:Classic Hollywood Central- this is from a Mysteries and Scandals documentary about Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe.

Source:The New Democrat

“Hey, guys! I’m kind of addicted to a series on here called “Mysteries and Scandals” that aired on E! from 1998-2001. I thought the music used in the series was extremely beautiful and I went on the hunt for the instrumental pieces and found a lot of them. I decided to make a series based on this called “Mysteries and Scandals Music”. The piece in this video is not used in a particular episode, but it’s just as beautiful as the music that is. The title is “Marilyn” and the artist is Percy Faith. I do not own any of the material presented here. Thanks for watching :)”

From Classic Hollywood Central 

"E! Mysteries & Scandals: Marilyn Monroe (1998)

Noreen Siegel (Monroe's doctor's wife), Jeanne Carmen (actress), James Spada (biographer), Jack Clemmons (cop on scene), James Haspiel (author), Evelyn Moriarty (friend) and Dr. John Miner are interviewed about the mysterious death of Marilyn Monroe.

Monroe's entire life was nothing but mysteries and scandals so her acting career isn't even discussed here because the main focus is her controversial death and the various theories surrounding it. Was it a suicide? Accidental overdose? Were the Kennedy's involved? Or perhaps the maid? Each of these theories are discussed and we get interviews with a cop who was first on the scene of her death as well as several of Monroe's friends. This is certainly one of the better episodes in the series simply because Monroe's death was just so bizarre that it opens up a can of worms in regards to the theories as to what happened. If you're a fan of the series you'll certainly enjoy the episode...  

From IMDB 

"The Mystery of Marilyn Monroe and her death on August 4th 1962."  

Source:Marilyn Monroe History- Hollywood Babydoll Marilyn Monroe 

From Marilyn Monroe History

I don't believe there is much if any mystery to the death of Marilyn Monroe. Hate to break it to the people who have to believe that there was some suspicious Hollywood like scandal involving the death of one of their Hollywood icons and celebrities. People who believe that John F. Kennedy had ordered the death of Marilyn and perhaps had her pint-size brother Bobby commit the murder himself. The same people who perhaps believe that Lyndon Johnson ordered the death of President Kennedy. Maybe they also believe that LBJ ordered the death of JFK because he wanted Marilyn for himself.

But thats an issue with conspiracy theories they tend not to have a lot of intelligence and reasoning behind him. And tend to be put together by people who simply have too much time on their hands or have a tough time dealing with the real world what the rest of us call Planet Earth and they escape to the planet of Fantasyland where they simply see things that no one else can. And not because they have even better than 20/20 vision or borrowed Superman's supervision. But because they see things that simply don't exist. Their bodies might be on Earth but their minds are on Fantasyland.

You could argue suicide and not sound like someone who just escaped from a mental institution. Marilyn Monroe did have a history of depression and lacked self-confidence. Here's a woman who was 5'5-5'6 who had a great body who cill fill out denim jeans and tight dresses and skirts as well or better than any woman who has ever lived, who had a beautiful body obviously. 

Marilyn was ta hot, baby-faced, adorable woman with a little girls' personality to match her baby face and yet you have this beautiful hot Los Angeles August Saturday night and she's home alone in her big house. With only her maid as far as any possible company. Which I believe could back any possible suicide theory . Why is this Hollywood goddess home alone on this gorgeous summer Saturday night?

55 years later I still believe the best theory to how and why Marilyn Monroe died during the summer of 1962 was an overdose. Again, she had a history of depression, was a borderline alcoholic if not an alcoholic and was addicted to pain killers. A lot of those pills dealing with the depression that she had. 

I'm not arguing suicide but when you're drunk you tend to do a lot of stupid things unintentionally. (Not that I'm speaking from personal experience) Especially if you get drunk on a regular basis.

And its very believable that she simply not just drank too much that night but even after having all of that alcohol still wasn't feeling very well and decided that she needed something else to make her feel better. So she turns to pills. Pills and alcohol together, is like fire and gas together: you only put those things together when you want a big explosion. 

So Marilyn is drinking too much and then taking not just pills but too many pills and I still believe the best theory is that she unintentionally overdosed which is what killed her and that she unintentionally killed herself.

People who are going to argue that someone murdered someone else need a better theory than the supposed target has dirt on them that they're about to release which is why the supposed suspect or suspects had their target murdered. You need to at least be able to put a suspect at the place where the supposed target was murdered at the time or about the time that the target died. 

Again, people who believe that both Jack and Bob Kennedy were involved the death of Marilyn Monroe, perhaps also believe that Lyndon Johnson ordered the death of Jack Kennedy. Lyndon just happening to be the Vice President of the United States when he supposedly had President Kennedy murdered. The same evidence to offer LBJ being behind the death of JFK, is the same evidence that has been offered to support JFK and RFK, being behind the death of Marilyn Monroe: which is nothing.  

Americans United: Rokia Hassanein: Jerry Falwell Jr. Admits That The Religious Right's Support For Donald Trump Is About Power, Not Values

Source:Americans United- Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr.

Source:The New Democrat

The Religious-Right (Christian-Right, actually) support for a man like Donald Trump is all the evidence that you need to know that this political movement is nothing more than a fraud. This is a moment that self-proclaim's itself being about defending conservative Christian values and what they call American values, and yet they back a man who owns casinos, did business with strip clubs, admits to molesting women, has been divorced twice and cheated on his previous two wives, was pro-choice on abortion up until 2011 or so, a New York City Liberal Democrat, up until 2012 or so, even pro-gay marriage and yet they claim is someone who defends their conservative Christian values. Which of those values is he defending? The divorces, abortion, sexual harassment, gay marriage?

The Christian-Right, at least the hardcore partisans in the movement who seem interested nothing but defeating Democrats at any costs, are a political cult. Religious cult might be too nice for them. They are America's and the West's version of ISIS. They take a religion in Christianity and the Evangelical wing of it and have completely butcher it. And have fooled millions of Southern Anglo-Protestants in America into thinking that they're behind him and back their way of life and defend Christianity everyday. When the only thing that they're doing is backing Republicans who share their fundamentalist theocratic political philosophy.

Jerry Falwell Jr. (the President of Liberty University) support for Donald Trump, is all about politics. It has nothing to do with Christianity and Christian values. Trump wasn't active at all when it came to religion up until a few years ago and can't even quote one line from the Bible. Trump is a Republican and a right-wing Nationalist and Falwell and other members of his movement see his as their ticket to getting right-wing judges appointed and confirmed, as well as getting more right-wing Republicans and so-called Christian-Conservatives elected to office.

Skeptic Magazine: 'How Rachel Bloom Became a Card-Carrying Skeptic'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Comedian Rachel Bloom, on why she's a skeptic 

Source:The Daily Review 

“Rachel Bloom (creator and star of the American romantic-comedy-drama Crazy Ex-Girlfriend) shared with us a few of the defining moments in her life that led to her becoming a card-carrying skeptic.

Tell us your story and become a card-carrying skeptic!

Learn how at:Skeptic." 

From Skeptic Magazine

 believe anyone who is a realist and just doesn't call themselves a realist because they have some need to have people believed they're smarter and more advanced than they really are, but literally lives by the attitude or practice of accepting situations for what they are and not over or underplaying things, but seeing everything for what it is based on the best available information at the time, is not just going to be a skeptic but a natural skeptic. As well as one of the least romantic people you'll ever meet. Not a bad person, necessarily but not someone who doesn't have big dreams generally.

A skeptic is Probably not a fan of romantic comedies and certainly not romance novels and not someone you want to spend a day watching a holiday movie marathon of romantic comedies on The Hallmark Channel or some other network. Not someone who is going to say, "dreams really do come true." But instead will be the person that not just tells you what they know and what they're thinking and will kick your butt verbally when you need it because they'll tell you when you screwed up and perhaps tell you how you can fix the problem or problems. They'll tell you what you don't want to hear, because they know its medicine that you need to know to improve yourself.

According to Wikipedia- skepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. A skeptic will be the last person who is going to get screwed over by someone or something, because the skeptic doesn't automatically take everything that they hear from someone else at face value. "That person must be telling the truth because they would't hurt me or are not stupid." Really? That might be true but if that person just happens to tell the same thing to a skeptic, the skeptic won't automatically take whatever that person said at face value, especially if what that person said doesn't match up very well with reality. Doesn't match up with the best available facts and evidence on the ground.

I believe skeptics are people who have generally been screwed over by others in the past and simply hate that feeling to the point that they don't want that to happen to them again. So a wealthy man lets say who perhaps isn't the best looking man around who has a history of being involved with beautiful sexy women who later get a lot of money and other property from the man and perhaps even win judgements against the man, that guy especially if they're still a wealthy man even after dating all the gold diggers, will have hopefully have learned their lesson. Especially after already being played by 3-5 gold diggers in the past and will think long and hard about getting involved with another beautiful sexy woman in the future, especially a younger woman and make preparations in the future. Especially if that guy already has kids who are grown up.

Now, someone who doesn't have a history of being screwed over but has been very skeptical all along just from being on Planet Earth especially in America and knowing that there are a lot of Americans who want the truth to be better than it is, as well as having a habit for telling people what they want to know instead of whatever the truth is, that is the person that you want to get to know. Even if you do love romance and even romantic comedies and holiday movies, because you'll always know where that person is emotionally, what they're thinking because they'll tell you. And you'll end up learning a lot from that person. You also might come down with a case of depression,  because a lot of news in the world and what's going on can be tough to hear. But if you're a mentally healthy intelligent person, you'll not only get a lot from that person but be able to handle that information as well.

I'm not saying people should be negative or positive, optimistic or pessimistic. I'm saying they should be real and always live on Planet Earth. Unless they're an astronaut and then I guess there will be times when they leave the real world. But seriously, always know what's going on so you can make the best available decisions and adjustments that you possibly can. The three most valuable tools that any person can have in life are their health, time, and information. Without your health, you really can't do anything and you might not even be conscience anyway. Without time, well you can't do anything either because you're always out of time.

But without valuable credible information even if you're healthy and manage your time well, you're going to make a lot of mistake simply because you don't know what the hell your'e doing. A person that Rachel Bloom might call can asshole. Someone who is skeptical or is a skeptic, will simply make the best decisions they possibly can because they're always operating under the best information. Thats all.   

The Washington Post: Anne Applebaum: '100 Years After The October Revolution, Bolshevism is Back & We Should be Worried'

Source: The Washington Post- Pro-Vladimir Lenin rally in Moscow? 

Source:The New Democrat

"100 Years After The October Revolution, Bolshevism is Back & We Should be Worried"

From The Washington Post

"World War One broke the 2nd International, as most of the workers' parties supported their own ruling class and the war effort. Lenin and the Bolsheviks maintained a class position, opposing the war, even after the February Revolution, when many former opponents of the war became supporters. The Bolshevik war policy became a key pillar of the party's programme as it led the working masses to victory in October 1917.

This speech was made by Niklas Albin Svennson at the World School of the International Marxist Tendency in 21017."

From In Defence of Marxism

Source: In Defense of Marxism- Pro-Communist rally in Moscow?

Anne Applebaum in her Washington Post column seems to be arguing that the New-Right or Alt-Right both in America and in Europe, come from leftist movements and we really aren't talking about right-wingers here, but Far-Leftists who are now backing right-wing Nationalist candidates, because these Nationalist candidates and politicians, are also anti-multiculturalism, integration, globalization, perhaps share certain fundamentalist religious beliefs when it comes to cultural issues.

I hope Anne Applebaum is not making this argument at least from pure partisan lens and is someone on the Right who simply can't admit that there are extremists and fringe elements on her side of the political spectrum. Which is what right-wingers Hugh Hewett and Jeffrey Lord do all the time when they're questioned about some extremist or fringe movement on the Right, there response is always something to the affect, what about these extremists on the Left, or the extremists that are being talked about are really left-wingers. In an attempt dodge the issue.

Hyper-Partisans on the Right argue all the time that Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, are actually leftists. Or that it was Progressive and Liberal Democrats, who fought against and blocked civil rights legislation in Congress in the 1960s. Even though the opposition to those laws actually came from Neo-Confederate right-wing Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party who are Republicans today because of the civil rights law and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. And besides, a lot of people on the Right who make these arguments that Left were the ones blocking civil rights legislation, don't support those laws today.

As far as Nationalists in America and even Neo-Confederates in America who backed Donald Trump and the Republicans who still back President Trump in Congress especially in the House of Representatives, they're part of the right-wing populist Tea Party movement of the late 2000s and earlier part of this decade. Representative Steve King from Iowa, is inline with President Trump on all the cultural and economic issues, as well as foreign affairs. Who sees multiculturalism and non-European immigration as a threat to American culture. Right-wing author and columnist Ann Coulter, is one of the princesses of the Alt-Right, has been one of Donald Trump's biggest supporters since he declared his presidential candidacy in 2015. Same thing with right-wing Nationalist columnist and author Pat Buchanan, who has backed Donald Trump from day one.

We're not talking about Communists or even Democratic Socialists when we're talking about Donald Trump's Nationalist base in America. We're talking about blue-collar populists from the deep South and Midwest, who are primarily European-American, as well as Protestant, but Catholic as well, who believe their America is disappearing and see immigration as a threat to their way of life and culture in America.

Donald Trump who is no genius when it comes to public policy certainly and doesn't even read legislation and policies that comes out in favor of, before changing his mind the next day after hearing from people who disagree with the policy because they've read it and understand it, but Trump doesn't have a keen political eye. And saw a huge opening and feeling in the country and way to tap into it and form his own political movement that he use to get to the White House. Even though 10-15 years ago you cold probably accurately describe Donald Trump as a New York Liberal Democrat.

The Washington Post: Todd Townsend & Carol Cordon Bleu- 'What if Hillary Clinton Had Won?: Department of Satire'

Source:The Washington Post- Todd Townsend and Carol C. Bleu.

Source:The Daily Review 

"One year after the election, the Washington Post’s Department of Satire imagines what the world would be like if Hillary Clinton had become president - and Donald Trump had lost."

From The Washington Post

Imagine a President Hillary Clinton if you can just for a minute and especially considering the current President of the United States., that shouldn't be too scary.

Millions of men who are on the Alt-Right and the Nationalist -Right in America, would be protesting daily about what they see as a radical feminist Communist in the White House, who seeks to eliminate all forms of masculinity and manhood. And transform all the wealth from Caucasian-Americans, to all racial and ethnic minorities in the country.

Fox News with a daily as well as 24 hours not so special coverage about what they call the criminal in the White House and her attempts to destroy what they call their traditional America.

Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, Republicans would probably still control the House, but there'a a reasonable chance that Democrats could have won back the Senate, because there would've been a higher Democratic turnout in states like Pennsylvania and Florida. And perhaps Democrats would have won the Senate even if there was a 50-50 split. And we would see House Republicans launching new investigations in to the lives of the Bill and Hillary Clinton. Making the Ken Starr investigation from the 1990s look like not just a fishing expedition, but fishing festival. Wait, the Ken Starr investigation was a fishing expedition.

Perhaps the Christian-Right leaves America and goes to Saudi Arabia or Iran, where its still okay and acceptable to treat girls and women like property. Since they'll no longer be able to do that with a Clinton Administration in America. Judge Roy Moore would be one of the first so-called Christian-Conservatives packing his bags and out on the first flight to Riyadh or Tehran.

We'll never know this for sure, but we do know that you still have a large Donald Trump base in the Republican Party who views President Trump as their cult leader. And won't criticize anything that Trump does including not paying his taxes, because Donald Trump is their cult leader. And if he does something it must be okay to them because he did it. And no godlike cult leader can ever be wrong according to them. But without a Donald Trump, these Republicans would return back to Planet Earth at least even if its just for a visit, to stop at all costs Hillary Clinton from doing her job as President of the United States had she won in 2016 and try to prevent her from finishing her first term. 

The New Republic: Clint Smith: 'Affirmative Action as Reparations'

Source:The New Republic- The American agriculture industry in the 1930s.

Source:The New Democrat 

"For affirmative action to survive, we need to rethink what it is meant to do and who it is meant to serve."

From The New Republic

"Jay Fayza of TheRebel.media says that a libertarian, meritocratic approach to higher education makes more sense than the Marxist focus on quotas. MORE:Rebel News."

From Rebel News

Source: Rebel News- Talking about affirmative action.

The main reason why I oppose affirmative action at least in the sense of reward any American or Americans based on race, ethnicity, or gender, is because I have this old and I guess what young Millennial's who love socialism and would find corny Martin Luther King notion of judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. If you want a race, ethnicity, and gender blind society, then that has to start at the top and with government.

You can't have government preach about the dangers of racism and other bigotry when on the other hand its subsidizing racism and bigotry. Denying people access in America simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender, is bigotry. Even if you're doing it to help people that you believe are disadvantage perhaps even to the point that they're not good enough to make it on their own.

Which is what affirmative action is basically saying to African and Latin-Americans. That we meaning Uncle Sam, believe that you (African and Latin-Americans) not good enough to compete with European and Asian-Americans, so as a result we're going to give you an extra head start and allow for you to go to college and get other jobs at the expense of European and Asian-Americans in the name of diversity. And at the same time tell European and Asian-Americans that their too many of them here right now. They're too successful and because of that they're not welcome to work here or go to school here.

What proponents of affirmative action don't seem to understand is that affirmative action is not bigoted towards just European-Americans, but everyone else. Asian, African, and Latin-Americans. Affirmative action tells European-Americans that there too many of them here and that since their families have benefited from racism against African-Americans in the past including slavery, government is now going to punish Europeans for the evils of their ancestors.

Asian-Americans lose access to college because Asians do very well in America when it comes education and everything else and as a result a lot of them are qualified to go to college and get good jobs. Except for one qualification which is that they happen to be from the wrong race. And as a result too many of them according to big government go to this school or that one and as a result that school is telling them that they can't take any more Asians at this point.

Affirmative action tells African and Latin-Americans that they're not good enough to compete with their European and Asian counterparts on their own. That they don't come from the right families and aren't raised properly, didn't go to the right schools, and as a result need help from big government to compete against everyone else in America, because they're not good enough on their own.

You want a race, ethnic, gender, and color-blind society in America and I'm only talking about how people are judged and not what we see out of our own eyes, but just how we treat each other and not reward or punish people because of their ancestry, then you only accomplish that by not having policies that reward or punish based on ancestry. No to affirmative action and yes to strong civil rights laws and enforcement.

Punish people economically to the point that it would hurt employers and schools and other organizations when they deny or punish people simply because of their ancestry and be a strong incentive not to reward or punish people base on ethnicity.

And yes to a modern infrastructure and economic development system so every community in America regardless of race and ethnicity can succeed in America. As well as an education system where every American can go to the best school for them and have a real shot at succeeding in America even if they come from low-income parents and not be forced to go to school simply because of where they live.

What makes America exceptional is not our vast economic resources or our military firepower, even those things are great benefits to our country and we don't ever have to worry about another country attacking us and have to take foreign aide from other countries just to survive economically. But what makes us exceptional is our diversity at all levels and all kinds and our individualism. That we're this vast and diverse superpower and giant of a country that represents the whole world in the sense that everyone lives here.

No majority ethnicity and by the 2050 no majority race as well. And we're this country where regardless of your ancestry and how you start out in life you can literally make it in America. You don't see Americans escaping or even trying to escape America to live in another country where they believe they can get a better opportunity at life. We're all equal as Americans and are no better or worst than anyone else simply because of our ancestry.

Which means we can all succeed if just given the opportunity. Getting a good opportunity meaning education early in life and then taking advantage of that. Not because they needed big government to reward them simply because big government believes they have the right complexion or eye shape, hair, of whatever physical features that we inherit from our parents. African and Latin-Americans, don't need big government's help and reward them simply because of their race and ethnicity to succeed in America.

African and Latin-Americans, can accomplish these things on their own if they simply are able to go to good schools growing up and have parents who do everything they can to raise them properly so they can succeed. Because African and Latin-Americans, are just as good as everyone else in America and don't need special treatment and protection from big government.

The New Yorker: William Brennan: 'The Night Bernie Sanders Was President'

Source: The New Yorker- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The Daily Review

"On a recent evening, about two dozen Bernie Sanders supporters and assorted bons vivants crammed into the World Money Gallery, a boxcar-size events space on Montrose Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The occasion was the President Sanders Film Festival, at which four films would be shown. The gallery’s walls were decorated with glittery paintings of Sanders. “Better With Bernie—Baruch Hashem,” one read. Red and blue balloons floated at the ceiling, election-party-style; above the drinks table hung a large banner advertising “Bernie Sandwiches.” Amanda Mercado and Zachary Darvish, the festival’s organizers, stood beneath it, greeting people as they arrived. When attendees crossed the threshold, Mercado explained, they were stepping into an alternate universe, “where Bernie Sanders is President of the United States.”

Read the rest at The New Yorker

"Best buds! Don't miss The President Show, every Saturday night at 11pm on Comedy Central."

From Comedy Central

Source:Comedy Central- The Donald, making an appearance on Comedy Central. LOL

How about we all go to Colorado and load up on marijuana. Cigarets, cookies, whatever it might be and just get as high as New York skyscrapers and Elvis fans thinking they just saw The King. Because that might be the only way an honest, sane, intelligent person, can imagine a Democratic Socialist from New York City, who has represented the Socialist Republic of Vermont in Congress for now almost 27 years, as President of the United States. The George McGovern of the post-World War II generations.

Looking back at it now I believe the only reasons why Bernie Sanders who isn't even a registered Democrat, but self-described Democratic Socialist (which is a little different) became the number one alternative to Hillary Clinton, who really was the most qualified presidential candidate at least since George H.W. Bush, has to do with how screwed up the Democratic Party is, as well as the broader American political system. Americans are fed up with the establishment and and fed up with establishment political candidates, to the point that they will look at any candidate, especially who is an official Democrat or Republican who doesn't come from the establishment.

Bernie Sanders whatever you think of him doesn't come from the establishment, at least in a political party sense. I would argue that at least in the sense that anyone who has worked in Washington and has served in Congress for now 27 years when January comes in a couple of months, is as establishments as oranges are, well orange, or politicians lie. But Bernie's politics are certainly not establishment. I mean, a Democratic Socialist who promises all of these so-called free services from government, because he doesn't trust the private sector to provide them and doesn't even believe in capitalism, is as anti-Washington as Libertarians are anti-socialism.

And again Bernie Sanders runs for President at a time when American hate politicians and hate how their government is being run and how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. Also at a time when you have roughly hundred-million Millennial's who don't like capitalism, or at least that is what they say, even though they buy and love all the products and services that come from capitalism. And not just with new technology and Hollywood, but fashion and everyone else that our capitalist system produces.

But Millennial's seem to believe that they're being screwed by capitalism. They have college degrees and yet they can't seem to find jobs that moves them out of their parents basements. They're drowning in college debt. And here you have at the time a 74 year old Jewish Democratic Socialist who was originally from New York City (perhaps the capital of American Socialism) come in and say, "capitalism and the rich, are screwing Americans. And we need to destroy the capitalist and two-party establishment and do something else."

The reason why someone like Bernie Sanders (the George McGovern of today) who would be as mainstream in Sweden or Britain as soccer is popular, but in American politically stands out as badly as pornographers at a Southern Baptist Convention and seems to have landed in America from the Planet Utopia and playing Santa Clause (I guess a Jewish Santa Clause) with all of these gifts from Uncle Sam saying that all of these services are free, with a fat bill in the mail later on that most of us call taxes, but the reason why a Bernie Sanders can make a strong run for the presidential nomination for the largest and oldest political party at least in America, is because he came down from Planet Utopia and saw a perfect political storm.

The anti-establishment of anti-establishment political candidates running at a time when the establishment in America is as unpopular as New York Yankees fans at an Irish pub in Boston. With millions of Americans essentially jumping on the Bernie bandwagon and saying they hate the establishment too and they also love socialism (even though most of them don't know what it is) and are going to work hard for Bernie Sanders for President. And cheering and loving everything that Bernie says, because he's always promising free stuff and gifts from Uncle Sam. Apparently Socialists don't believe taxes are fees and bills that taxpayers pay for government services.

I'm not sure I can imagine a Bernie Sanders for President in America. I think it would have been interesting to see Democrats give him the nomination just to see how the Donald Trump Campaign would have played him, which is exactly what they would have done. Part of Donald Trump's rigged system theme was all about Bernie and how he believed the Democratic Party was treating Bernie. They wanted to run against Bernie regardless of what the polls were saying, because of what Bernie represents ideologically.

They could've run commercials essentially saying that America can't afford Bernie. Under a Bernie Sanders presidency, America wouldn't be able to defend themselves, because Bernie would gut the defense system.

You would see commercials like, "North Korea wants Bernie Sanders as President, so they can attack us when our defense is down."

Another commercial like, "under President Bernie Sanders, Americans would now have to work three jobs instead of 1 or even 2. One job to pay the taxes and two jobs to try to support themselves."

And these ads would work because you have millions of Americans who don't follow politics very closely and have a tendency to believe what people tell them without even considering the source of the information and whatever motives the person might have for saying what they're saying. Which is how you get the political system that we have in America where politicians are essentially in office to stay in office and get elected to higher office. Because if they even bother to try to govern they could risk losing political support.

I can't imagine a Bernie Sanders as President simply because I'm an American and I'm smart enough to know that Americans might say they like free government services, but only until they find out that those services aren't free and that their real taxes that come from those services. And even if a Bernie Sanders gets to the White House, that is probably as far as he would get. Because he would have a Congress even if Democrats control the House or Senate or even both chamber's, telling President Sanders no. Because they believe government is trying to do too much here, but also because they don't want to raise the taxes on people that they need in order to get reelected. But in a country that invented Hollywood Americans can imagine anything. Including a Socialist as President.

The New Republic: Jeet Heer: 'Sibling Rivalry: Democratic Socialists & Liberals'

Source:The New Republic- Bernie Sanders & Nancy Pelosi: political tug of war.

Source:The New Democrat 

"At a town hall meeting in New York City early this year, Nancy Pelosi fielded a thorny question about the direction of her party. Trevor Hill, a dapper New York University sophomore sporting a light purple shirt and suspenders, wanted to know where the House minority leader stood on the question of socialism. A recent poll had shown that more than half of all American voters younger than 30—not just Democrats—no longer support capitalism. This statistic felt true to Hill’s own experience, not just among his NYU classmates but also from what he’d seen in polls and on television. He was glad that Democrats had moved to the left on social issues, like gay marriage. So why, he asked Pelosi, couldn’t they move left on economic issues? Could she see Democrats embracing a “more populist message—the way the alt-right has sort of captured this populist strain on the right wing?”

From The New Republic

"The man who got 13 million votes in the Democratic primary is now poised to lead the effort to bring about structural changes to the party."

From The Late Show With Stephen Colbert

Source:The Late Show With Stephen Colbert- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont? 

What's going on in the Democratic Party today reminds me of what was going on post-JFK assassination in the 1960s and into the 1970s. Even though I wasn't born until 1975, of course I don't remember seeing this, but I read pretty well and watch a lot of documentaries. With John F. Kennedy in the White House the Democratic Left was essentially made up of Center-Left Progressives and Liberals. Democratic Socialists back then were still in the closet politically. Communists, were either in hiding or looking to escape both physically and politically to Cuba or Russia.

Back in the early 1960s you had the FDR/LBJ Progressive Democratic Coalition. And the JFK Liberal Democrats who believed in freedom and even capitalism, but that it should benefit everyone and not just people born to wealth and European-Americans. JFK Democrats would be what are called New Democrats today. The Center-Left Progressives and Liberals, tended too agree on foreign policy and national security issues, both were strong internationalists, anti-Communists, strong defense, effective law enforcement, fiscal responsibility, free trade, civil rights, equal rights, but tended to differ on the role of the Federal Government and what it should do for the people and how much it should tax.

It was Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, (Progressive Democrats)  that made America the economic and military power that it is today. Not all by themselves obviously, but moved us into the direction during World War II and after that. Liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy was an internationalist hawk on foreign policy and national security and probably hated communism as much as Ronald Reagan. But he also believed in civil rights and pushed for those things, as well as civil liberties, freedom of choice, right to privacy, didn't believe Americans should be highly taxed.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson pretty much all by himself, along with the JFK assassination, pretty much destroyed the old Democratic Party. The civil rights laws and the Great Society, moved the right-wing Dixiecrats (who would be called Nationalists today) out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party. Thanks to the Baby Boom coming of age in the the 1960s and the Vietnam War, Socialists in America (both Democratic and Communist) came out of the closet. Perhaps moving back from Cuba and Russia and into the Democratic Party.

Democrats started losing the South but started dominating the West Coast and Northeast with all of these new Socialists into the party. Who didn't think communism was a bad thing, who didn't like capitalism, who thought America was the real Evil Empire and I could go on, but I'll spare you. The New-Left in the Democratic Party came of age post-JFK assassination and into the LBJ Administration.

What we're seeing now in the Democratic Party is the Democratic Socialist (not Communist) wing of the New-Left, that is led by Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist Republic of Vermont) and the Nancy Pelosi Progressive Democratic wing of the Democratic Party led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Who comes from the New-Left socialist wing from the 1960s in San Francisco, but has moderated her radical views from the time before she was Democratic Leader, because she now represents and much broader party and caucus. My JFK Liberal Democratic wing is not as big or at least as vocal. Perhaps Senator Cory Booker and former Governor Martin O'Malley, now represent the Liberal Democrats in the party.

If the Democratic Party wants to win back the House and have even a shot at winning back the Senate in 2018, both the Center-Left Liberals and Progressives and Far-Left Socialists, are going to have to come together and work together, stop attacking each other because they believe one side is too centrist or radical. Come together on a agenda that brings new Democrats into the party and votes Democratic. And let the presidential primary season decide how far left the Democratic Party goes into the future, or do we remain a Center-Left party that we've been at least since the 1990s. Otherwise the party will break up and you won't see a large Democratic Party that can compete against the GOP in the future.

Constitution Daily: 'Looking Back: George Carlin & The U.S. Supreme Court'

Source:Constitution Center- The great comedian George Carlin.

Source:The Daily Review 

"On July 3, 1978, the Supreme Court issued its historic verdict in the George Carlin “seven dirty words” case, a decision that still holds sway over the use of indecent and obscene language on television, and in a new era of mass communications." 

From the National Constitution Center 

"George Carlin on his reaction to the Supreme Court case about his Seven dirty words." 

Source:Foundation Interviews- comedian George Carlin talking about his seven dirty words.

From Foundation Interviews

The blog writes a lot about political correctness and fascism, because we write a lot about comedy and write comedy ourselves and without free speech which is what political correctness and fascism tries to restrict (obviously, duh, you don't say!) there would't be any comedy and even political satire. Which is why I'm always amused if not confused when so-called left-wing comedians and other entertainers make calls for political correctness because they think some material is offensive.

Because without free speech there wouldn't be any comedy. I mean, if political correctness ran this country instead of the First Amendment, comedians wouldn't be able to crack jokes about anybody. Especially the people who deserve to be made fun of. Like our politicians, just to use as an example. Entertainers attacking free speech is very ironic. Because speech is what fuels comedy, as well as self-awareness and what's going on around you in life. Even comedians have stood up for political correctness against free speech, like Michael Moore and others. Even John Oliver, Stephanie Miller, John Fugelsang, would be other examples.

A comedian attacking free speech, is like a race car driver saying oil and gas are bad for the environment and therefor should be outlawed. Oil and gas literally fuel that race car driver's career. Without it, he might be flipping burgers or selling lemonade. Or a pro football player saying football is too violent and therefor tackling should be outlawed. Who would go watch professional flag football? As the great comedian Mel Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy because comedians are worried about offending oversensitive tight asses, who think they're the only perfect human beings on the face of the Earth who don't deserve to be made fun of. Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy. The second part is my line.

George Carlin is not the first victim of political correctness when it comes to comedy. You could argue at least that Lenny Bruce back in the 1950s and 60s has that uthonorable title. But George and Lenny, are from the same generation. Lenny would literally go on stage using cuss words as part of his act and I'm not talking about hell or damn, but he would talk about sex and talk about how people would have sex with each other and put it bluntly. And then would literally be arrested on stage for using foul language. George has  a similar but different story.

George would go on stage and literally use words like shit, fuck, mother fucker, mother fucking fucking, and others and these were part of the so-called seven dirty words that comedians weren't supposed to use in Phyllis Schlafly's 1950s America, where you weren't even allowed to say God, Jesus, and hell, at least not on TV.

Liberal democracy which has a practically guaranteed right for free speech in America under are First Amendment. The only exceptions having to do with falsely libeling, inciting violence, or harassment, like leaving obscene message on someone's voice mail, to use as an example. This is not the place for oversensitive tight asses who look at the mirror and only see perfection. Or have a glass jaw for an ego and can't take the smallest bit of criticism without breaking out in tears and flooding their homes from all of their perspiration. I don't know, maybe Canada is a country for people like that.

If you don't like offensive material, then don't watch it or listen to it! Only watch PBS and C-SPAN if you can't handle criticism about yourself and groups you believe have constitutional protection not to be criticized that no one else has. With liberal democracy comes a lot of individual freedom, but with that comes responsibility and the fact that you're not the only one who lives here and you have the same freedom and responsibility that everyone else has. And might from time to time hear and see things that you disapprove of. But so will everyone else.

Brookings Institution: Vanessa Williamson: 'Back Without Popular Demand- Tax Cuts For The Wealthy & Tax Hikes For The Middle Class'

Source:Brookings Institution- talking about the Republican tax plan.

Source: The New Democrat  

"The Trump-GOP tax plan released today gives an enormous tax cut to wealthy people and corporations. These tax cuts have been a top priority for Republican leadership, despite the fact that, as I demonstrate in my new book, corporate tax breaks are among the least popular things the government can do, and most Americans think wealthy people should be paying more, not less. More tax cuts for very rich people are back without popular demand—and it remains a terrible idea.

The likely regressive impact of the tax plan is well-explained elsewhere. Self-interested millionaires and billionaires will smile at the elimination of the AMT and the estate tax. A new loophole for “pass-through” businesses will reward little mom-and-pop shops like the Trump Organization. Other beneficiaries include multinational corporations that have been hiding their profits overseas.

It’s worth noting, however, exactly how unpopular these policies are.

If you ask Americans what bothers them about taxes, the most common answer is “the feeling that some corporations don’t pay their fair share.” The next most common? “The feeling that some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share.” Not even ten percent of Americans say that the amount they pay is what bothers them most. And even Republicans are more likely to say they are bothered by corporate tax avoidance than by their own tax responsibilities." 

From Brookings 

Source:Associated Press- talking about the Republican tax plan.

"President Trump and Republicans are proposing a $5 trillion plan that would cut taxes for corporations and individuals, simplify the code and nearly double the deduction used by most Americans. But questions remain about how much it will cost." 

From the Associated Press

If you're going to talk about tax reform especially if you're saying you're proposing it which is what President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans are saying that they're doing, you should at the very least know what tax reform is. When you're talking about tax reform you're at least implying that there's something that is currently wrong with the current system. Otherwise why would you want to reform it? Why fix what ain't broken, to use a cliche.

What the Congressional GOP Leadership led by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as President Trump are proposing, are tax cuts primarily if not exclusively for high-earners and business's. While lower-end middle class tax payers would actually get a tax increase. If you're lets say a teacher making 40 thousand-dollars a year, you're paying the 10 percent tax rate right now. Under the Trump-Ryan-McConnell plan you would pay 12 percent instead. So instead of paying 4,000 dollars a year to Uncle Sam in Federal income taxes (before deductions) plus 2,400 dollars in payroll taxes where there are no deductions, under Trump-Ryan-McConnell, you pay an additional 800 dollars in Federal income taxes and still have to pay that 2,400 in payroll taxes.

Call me crazy and maybe this just sounds like commonsense here, but I'm thinking if you were going to cut taxes that it might be a smart thing to do to cut taxes for people who could actually use the extra money in their pay checks who would then spend that money to help them pay their bills better and enjoy life more. Instead of cutting taxes for people who already have more than enough money to live out the rest of their lives comfortably and don't need an extra million-dollars in tax relief. But that is just me speaking off-the-cuff here.

What the Trump-Ryan-McConnell plan says to middle class taxpayers is essentially this. "Those hard-working middle class fools who've never made enough money to join our country clubs. Who have to worry about paying mortgages, who only own one home and perhaps not even a luxury car, let alone have their own driver. Who probably bowl during the week and drink beer and eat chicken wings. Can you believe these people voted for billionaire Donald Trump to be President? I know what we'll do, we'll raise their taxes so we can cut our own taxes and the people who keep us in office. They'll never know anyway, at least until they start filling out their income taxes next spring. And when they see less money in their paychecks, we'll just blame the Democrats. Those greedy working class Americans who struggle just to pay their bills and current tax bills, pay too little in taxes anyway. The only reason why the rich pay any taxes at all is because of our low rates on middle class workers. Why should the rich have to pay taxes when they're already so successful?"

Isn't the Republican Party supposed to be the party that never votes for tax increases on anyone? They're supposed to be the anti-tax party, at least when it comes to tax increases. Maybe the only reason why you still have any Conservative-Libertarians at all still in the Republican Party is because they're supposed to be the anti-tax and anti-regulation of business party. Senator Rand Paul who is a Conservative-Libertarian Republican, has come out against the GOP tax plan because its a middle class tax increase.

I don't see this plan passing at all even if Congressional Republican are somehow able to pass a Federal budget and be able to pass a tax plan with just 50 Senators and Vice President Mike Pence voting in favor of it. Again because you have a middle class tax increase in it with all 48 Democrats including Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders voting against it and probably 5-10 Senate Republicans. Especially if they're up for reelection next year, or not running for office again, or are true to their conservative economic principles of never being in favor of tax increases. Senator's like Rand Paul, John McCain, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, plus the so-called moderates like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, name a few. And they would have to pass this plan in the House as well with 190 plus House Democrats all voting against and perhaps 25-30 House Republicans or more, who are all up for reelection next year voting against the plan as well.

If you want to talk about tax cuts and tax reform as well even if the GOP plan fails, Congressional Democrats would be smart both in the House and Senate to have their alternative led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. That instead of raising the bottom 10 percent tax rate, you cut it to 7 or even 5 percent. The 15 percent tax rate take that down to 12 or 10. That would be a huge middle class tax cut that would benefit most of the country who tend to pay those first two rates in the tax code. And we would see a new demand in consumer spending as well.

And Democrats would have another issue next year to go along with ObamaCare repeal. Which is to say Democrats are the party of middle class tax cuts. The Republican Party is the party of middle class tax increases and believe that the rich shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all and the middle class are undertaxed. But then Congressional Democrats should also offer their hands to Congressional Republicans and President Trump on real tax reform. That says our business tax rates are too high, so lets cut them. But do it in a smart and fiscally responsible manner. And say you want lower business taxes, get rid of corporate welfare in exchange.

Democrats could say that everyone and every business that invests in America will pay a low tax rate, but get no subsidy to go along with their lower taxes. Democrats could say we don't think businesses should be overtaxed in America, but we're also against corporate welfare and pro-middle class.

The Onion: Revelations From Hillary Clinton's New Memoir- What Happened

Source:The Onion- HRC For POTUS.

Source:The Daily Review

What happened? Hillary Clinton might be the only person asking that question as far as how she's the first American presidential candidate to ever lose to a reality TV star who for the last 35 years in Donald Trump's case is mostly famous simply for being a New York celebrity. A career public servant in Hillary Clinton who has serious foreign policy, national security, and domestic policy experience and knowledge, versus a professional reality TV star who was a reality TV star before that term was ever invented.

Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump in a presidential election, would be like George H.W. Bush or Lyndon Johnson, losing a presidential election to Paris Hilton or any Kardashian you want to name. Its one of those I don't believe what I just saw moments and I just saw that. (To paraphrase the great sportscaster Jack Buck) Or the New England Patriots losing the Super Bowl to an expansion team.

I mean, would it have killed Hillary Clinton to eat a cheeseburger in Pittsburgh at any point between September and November last year. Stop for some chill in Cincinnati, have a steak in Columbus. Stop in Milwaukee or Madison, Green Bay and have some bratwurst and beer, even take in a football game. Sure! She probably would have eaten a few pounds and perhaps not have as much wine and cheese and caviar, or whatever fancy yuppie meals she's accustomed to having in New York, but it would have been for a good cause. Which is trying to get votes that you need when you're running for President of the United States.

There simply not enough yuppies people who hang out in coffee houses and work in new-tech, or as college professors for a Democrat to be elected President of the United States. And trying to rely on people who generally don't vote unless they see a candidate who uses the same smartphone as they do, watches the same reality show, shares the same coffee drink as their favorite coffee drink, listens to the same music, (referring to college students and other young adults) there not enough voters there to make up for average Americans who take voting seriously and want to feel a real connection with the people they're considering voting for. Talking about blue-collar and other middle class Democrats who voted for Donald Trump. As hard as it is to believe.

There's nothing average and working class about Donald Trump. Except for qualifications to be President of the United States. To say Donald Trump is an average Joe, or a blue-collar billionaire as he calls himself, is like saying that Tori Spelling and Paris Hilton are famous because of their great talents as entertainers. And not because of who their father's are. I mean, how many truck drivers do you know who own a golf club in Florida, as well as a vacation home and live in a penthouse in New York?

To try to sound serious for a minute (and that might be only a minute) the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 are the same reasons she lost the Democratic presidential primary in 2008. It really gets down to one person which is the person that she sees in the mirror when she's the only one there. To put it bluntly she comes off as an actress and not a real person. Someone playing a part instead of a real person. People in Pennsylvania had more trust and faith in a guy selling Brooklyn bridges and South Dakota beach homes (in Donald Trump) than a woman who might very well be the most qualified presidential candidate we've ever seen.

And that has nothing to do with Russia, or the fact that Hillary is obviously a woman, especially when you consider that less than half of Caucasian women voted for her for president. American votes like to know who they're voting for generally and decided as much as I disagree with this, but that Donald Trump even with his never-ending list of faults that probably deserve multiple great books and documentaries to cover all of them (CNN has produced most of them) that he was a better suited to be President than she was. Even though they overwhelmingly believed that Hillary was more qualified to be President than Donald.

The last and most important reason why Hillary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State in 2009 instead of being sworn in as President of the United States or spending 2017 writing a book on why she lost the 2016 presidential election, instead of being too busy to write a book like that because she has an administration to run as President, has to do with entitlement. Being a Democrat and the first female major presidential candidate, is not enough reason for Americans in at least the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin for them to vote for her to be President.

American voters are kind of stubborn and even prickly and actually expect their presidential candidates to offer them little annoying things like vision and reasons for voting for them. Other than the candidates saying, "hey, you might not like me, but you should hate my opponent more, because of these reasons." Not being Donald Trump in 2016 was not enough reason for Americans to elect Hillary Clinton as President. That is why she's not President Hillary Clinton right now. She didn't introduce the real Hillary Clinton to enough voters and give enough for them reasons to vote for her and not just against Donald Trump.

Brookings Institution: FixGov- Dana Goldman: 'Why Bernie Sander's Plan For Universal Health Care Is Only Half Right'

Source:Brookings Institution- Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vermont) holding a press conference introducing his Medicare For All plan.

Source:The New Democrat  

"Sen. Bernie Sanders plans to introduce his universal health care bill Wednesday; it is likely to serve as a litmus test for Democrats with presidential aspirations. The legislation is bold and simple, which makes it very appealing. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 60 percent of Americans believe the federal government should ensure health coverage for all Americans."  

From the Brookings Institution 

"Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-For-All bill has been revealed. Ana Kasparian, Jimmy Dore, and Ron Placone, the hosts of The Young Turks, tell you what’s in it. Tell us what you think in the comment section below:The Young Turks. 

"Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-For-All bill has been revealed. Ana Kasparian, Jimmy Dore, and Ron Placone, the hosts of The Young Turks, tell you what’s in it. Tell us what you think in the comment section below:The Young Turks 

“Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unveiled Wednesday a new version of his plan to give everybody government-run health insurance, potentially opening a new chapter in the ongoing debate over how to make health care in the U.S. more affordable and available.

The plan calls for an overhaul of American health insurance with a souped-up, more generous version of Medicare replacing nearly all private health insurance ― and government exerting far more control over the cost of medical care. It would arguably be the most ambitious social welfare initiative in U.S. history, but Sanders told HuffPost in an interview Tuesday that he believes America is ready for it.

“The American people are catching on to where the Republicans are coming from, they see the limitations of the Affordable Care Act and they’re looking at the alternatives,” Sanders said. “And this is a rational alternative.” 

Sanders has been waging a frequently lonely crusade for this kind of universal health care since the early 1990s, when he first came to Congress. In 2013, when he introduced a previous iteration of the bill, he had no support from his colleagues. But in a clear sign of the idea’s increasing popularity, as well as Sanders’ influence within progressive politics, 16 Democratic senators are co-sponsoring the bill.”  

Read more at The Huffington Post 

Source:The Young Turks- talking about Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist, Vermont) Medicare For All plan.

From The Young Turks

Actually, I believe Dana Goldman is being generous here and giving Senator Bernie Sanders too much credit here. I don't believe Senator Sanders is even half right and is selling his supporters a Mercedes for the cost of a Ford Escort and telling them that he'll get back to them as far as how much the Mercedes really cost later on. Leaving his supporters with hopes of buying a Mercedes with only the budget of an Escort.

The problem with a Mercedes health care plan is that is cost as much as a Mercedes. If you're looking at a Mercedes SEL or sports car, you're talking about eighty thousand dollars or more. If you're a young public school teacher just starting out, you might only be able to afford the Ford Escort economy car. Luxury cars are expensive for most Americans and so are great health care plans. Even Senator Sanders is now acknowledging that his so-called free universal Medicare For All health care plan is not free.

Why? Because it would be run by government. Who funds government? The taxpayers that consume its services. How do taxpayers pay for government services? Through taxation and that includes from their annual income, as well as payroll taxes that comes out of their paychecks. Whether you're new public school teacher making 25-30 thousand dollars a year, driving a Ford Escort or another economy car. Or corporate lawyer or crooked politician making 500 hundred thousand dollars a year driving a Mercedes SEL or perhaps a Jaguar, or another great luxury car. The Sanders's Medicare For All plan comes with deep costs and they have no idea to pay for it.

And you would be talking about a Medicare For All budget assuming you're completely eliminating all private health insurance companies, as well as Medicaid, Tri-Care, the Federal civil service health insurance program, and all state health insurance programs, you would be talking about an annual Medicare budget of over three-trillion-dollars, to go on top of the already four-trillion-dollar U.S. Government budget. There's no free health care for anyone who pays taxes. Which means the Medicare For All supporters would have to come up with the finances to pay for it.

And if that is not depressing enough I only covered the costs of a Medicare For All plan and the fact that their supporters don't have a damn clue how to pay for it. Other than saying, "well, if we can borrow trillions of dollars to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can do that to guarantee health care for everyone." Which at best is a sophomoric answer. Which is like saying, "hey if Billy can skip cool and shoplift, how come I can't and have to go to go to school everyday?." Not exactly an example that you want to teach people.

But how about the other big problem dealing with completely eliminating competition in the health insurance system and completely putting the U.S. Government in charge of the health insurance for 320 million Americans. We've already seen the problem with the Veteran Affairs Administration when you put the one agency in charge of not just the health insurance for everyone, but their complete health care as well.

Which is military veterans not able to get needed health care because their hospitals are overcrowded or live hundreds of miles from the nearest VA hospital. Which is why Congress and the Obama Administration reformed the VA in 2014 and now veterans can get health care at private hospitals at least, leaving taxpayers to pick up the costs of their health care that these veterans have earned by serving their country.

The VA example is really the only example you need to know why government shouldn't be in complete control of the health insurance for a country of 320 million people at least. Socialism is just not the answer here because government is no bureaucratic and moves so slowly with the executive not being able to reform themselves quickly and keep up with the times without the approval of Congress. And Congress which always has their eye on the next election and always keeping their eyes on their donors and making sure they're pleasing them and only being able to move when it helps them politically.

The U.S. Government doesn't respond to competition because it doesn't have any in America. In theory they can do whatever they want and don't even have to meet a budget. Private organizations obviously don't have have that luxury and have to stay within their budgets and be able to adapt and deliver the best and most affordable services that they can. Or they'll lose to the competition. Which is why you want competition in the health insurance market and you want to keep that market and if anything expand that market and give people other options to pay for their health insurance.

Like Medicare option and not just having Medicare for our oldest and unhealthiest Americans. That could be run by the states and not adding to the Federal budget. As well as health savings accounts including for low-income workers which would add even more competition to the health insurance market.

So, other than the costs of a Medicare For All plan other than their supporters seeming to believe that we can borrow three-trillion-dollars a years and put it on the national debt, which would actually be more expensive than what we borrowed for Afghanistan and Iraq, at least annually. 

Or than having rich people not only fund their own health care and health insurance, but forcing them to pay for everyone else's even for people who can afford health insurance and health care and that the U.S. Government would be in complete control of everyone's health insurance in a country of three-hundred and twenty-million people, without the money to pay for it other than deep borrowing and expecting wealthy people to cover the other costs and forgetting that rich people can simply escape taxes by moving their money to other countries, you might actually have to like the Sanders's Medicare For All Plan. At least the idealistic romance novel side of it. Free health care for everyone. Who would be against that. 

But again, so such thing as a free lunch for people who buy that food. No such thing as free health care for people who consume that health care.